ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Steve Cohen <sco...@javactivity.org>
Subject Re: [patch] FTP.java - adding support for new features in commons-net 1.4.0 and performance improvement
Date Thu, 12 May 2005 11:13:04 GMT
Jose Alberto Fernandez wrote:
>>From: news [mailto:news@sea.gmane.org] On Behalf Of Nicola Ken Barozzi
>>
>>Stefan Bodewig wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 11 May 2005, Jose Alberto Fernandez 
>>><jalberto@cellectivity.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>I do not think we can continue maintaining tasks for every 
>>
>>project in 
>>
>>>>the world just because they do not want to depend on ANT.
>>
>>Likewise, you cannot ask for every project to keep an Ant task just 
>>because Ant does not want to depend on them ;-)
>>
> 
> 
> We ask exactly that from other projects. We would like the SVN people to
> maintain
> their SVN tasks. And the ClearCase people to maintain theirs because
> then you can upgrade and deliver them in sync with their new versions.
> 
> On the other hand we "promise" not to break the API they use so that
> they
> do not need to worry about forward compatibility with ANT (within
> reason).

If we want this effort to succeed, Would it make sense to release this 
"interface" as a separate package required by ant and the antlibs to be 
maintained by others.  It might make the "promise" a little more 
concrete - and break some of the circular dependencies.
> 
> 
>>>Calm down.  We are talking about an existing Ant task that 
>>
>>gets used a 
>>
>>>lot.  And so far nobody has asked the commons-net people whether 
>>>they'd want to maintain it.
>>>
>>>If you ask me, Ant is the owner of the <ftp> task and commons-net 
>>>"only" a support library.  The javacc, antlr or weblogic tasks (for
>>>example) are completely different beasts IMHO.
>>
>>Yes.
>>
>>Ant tasks - like any piece of code really - should simply 
>>reside where 
>>people care about them, fix bugs and enhance them. IMHO this usually 
>>happens in Ant if the task is generic enough to be used by most 
>>committers, and ftp seems to be the case.
> 
> 
> Ok, but with that view. Any features of common-net will not be available
> until
> 1.7 is out some six month from now. Or people will have to use nightly
> builds.
> If you want the new features to be made available, then either
> common-net provides
> the task or has to coordinate the release cycles.
> 
> Not sure who is the winner on this.
> 
> I may not have made myself clear on one issue: When I talk about
> common-net's <ftp>
> task, I am not talking about the current task supported within ANT
> (which will have to stay
> there and get eventually deprecated). I am talking of a "new" <ftp>
> task, lets call it
> <net:ftp/> that provides all the features and benefits of using the
> common-net libraries.
> It will be common-net's new replacement task and it will be under
> common-net control. 
> 
> That is the whole point of the antlibs.
> 
> Jose Alberto

Although I have committed the code into Ant proper, I still may have a 
go at this approach if I can find the time.  I'd like to understand it a 
  little better first.  Can you point me at a good example?


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@ant.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@ant.apache.org


Mime
View raw message